Siggers-El v. Barlow

Full title: DARRELL SIGGERS-EL, Plaintiff, v. DAVID BARLOW, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Dec 30, 2005

Civil Action No. 01-72729 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 30, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 01-72729.

December 30, 2005

FINAL ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JUDGMENT AWARDING DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

ARTHUR TARNOW, District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

A jury trial was held in this matter on November 15-16, 2005. Pursuant to the jury's verdict, which the Court treated as advisory for the purposes of Plaintiff's request for declaratory and injunctive relief, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), the Court sets forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law below. In addition, the Court hereby enters judgment awarding declaratory and injunctive relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 58. In reaching its verdict, the Court has considered Plaintiff's proposed judgment, Defendant's objections to the proposed judgment, and Plaintiff's response to Defendant's objections.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

The Court finds that Defendant, David Barlow, designated Plaintiff for transfer after Plaintiff complained to Defendant's supervisors that Defendant had failed to authorize disbursements of money from Plaintiff's prison account to pay his lawyer to review his appellate brief and file and to meet with him concerning his criminal conviction. The Court also finds that the question of whether or not Plaintiff could be placed under Defendant's supervision at some point in the future is not moot, and that the likelihood of such placement is sufficient to warrant injunctive relief.

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Court concludes that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of Plaintiff's First Amendment rights.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECLARED that Defendant, David Barlow, violated Plaintiff's First Amendment rights.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant, David Barlow, is enjoined from serving in a position of direct or indirect authority over Plaintiff for the duration of Plaintiff's imprisonment with the Michigan Department of Corrections.

SO ORDERED.